cable television companies. we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of the white house and public policy events around theon dc and country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. the u.s. north korea summit is set for tuesday. --k tv will feature books authors with books about the region. book, --rk and her yeonmi park. suki kim. and "america and the rogue states." tv, sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern.

>> spotlight on magazines features ted johnson. welcome. come here ando talk about the at&t time warner merger. talk aboutto at&t-time warner merger. a judge is supposed to act next week on the future of this proposed merger. what is supposed to happen? on tuesday at 4:00, he scheduled a hearing and that is where he said he will announce his decision. there was a six week trial that and place during late march april. , a lot ofbecause judges when they announce the decisions, they will just say, well, we will upload it to the computer system and you guys will have to kind of watch on your own. this time, it is much more theatrical. he will have both parties in there, a lot of the media, and he is going to say, this is what i'm doing.

host: used to june -- u.s. district judge leon. explain for us what at&t and time warner are looking to do with this merger. what a first -- when did a first-come about? guest: it cannot quite a long time ago before the election. it came out october 2016 is when he announced the merger. 80 $5 billion deal. at&t has been looking to buy a content company. owns a slew of cable networks. cnn, tbs, hbo. it owns warner bros., the fabled hollywood studio. they have been anxious to get their hands on it because at&t says the future is going to be in these bolt up content companies -- bulked up

touching cavities. we need them to compete against facebook's of the world. not just offering their own type of content, but also advertising. in a big do for at&t is they can create this kind of innovative new advertising platform that they believe will change the business. the department of justice gets involved in says, not so fast. what are the concerns being put forth by the government in this case against the merger? guest: on the consumer level, the government says it has made the calculation this merger will end up costing consumers. their original estimate was $.45 acrossscriber per month the pay-tv ecosystem. that may not sound like a whole lot, given consumers are used buthese price increases,

the doj says it adds up and also their role is the enforcement agency. whatare not there to judge the extent of the impact is. they are there to call when they think there is antitrust problems in a merger. they say they have found them, definitely, when it comes to at&t and time warner. host: let's put the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen for ted johnson, joining us for the first time on. -- talking about the 18 to on "washington journal", first time for ted johnson talking about at&t and time warner merger. guest: wall street and certainly everyone in the media industry is looking at because it is not just this merger. there are a number of mergers wind up behind it.

i think this will be a big day for the media industry. some are saying this will even for of shape the industry years in the future depending on what the judge decides. the judge could go in and say -- he could reject this deal, and that would be a pretty definitive ruling. or he could allow it to go forward. very simplebe two rulings, but during the trial, there was a lot of talk about different types of conditions that could perhaps be placed on the dl. the judge seemed to of her particular interest in the whole idea that we could have this system of arbitration. so when competitors are unhappy with some of the competitive conduct that at&t is doing, they can go in and resolve disputes, especially when it comes to carriage of cable channels. i don't want to get too much into the weeds in it because it gets quite technical, but it is

the whole idea you could kind of salt some of these antitrust problems with an arbitration clause, or you would -- both parties would agree to have some kind of a neutral authority to resolve some of these disputes. in the antitrust world, there's a lot of disagreement over the effectiveness of an arbitration clause. , under a trump appointee, is -- they're not so gung ho about that type of the condition. they would rather see these deals go through with all of those problems resolved by saying, hey, you need to sell off this certain division and actually make this a lot more palatable to the consumer. host: the president of the united states in the middle of all of this. why is his justice department involved in pushing back against

the merger? what kind of policy, what can of thinking does the president have on these type of issues? guest: that has been getting big issue. it is not been in the trial, but at&t's ceo randall stephenson calls trump the elephant in the room because donald trump on the campaign trail said he was opposed to the merger. but the subtext is that he is unhappy with cnn and he would ofe to use this deal as kind revenge against cnn-type of coverage. they actually presented that before the trial started. i should say at&t and time warner as a possible line of argument. but the judge rejected that. i think judge leon was very concerned if he allowed them to kind of pursuit that line of extend thisey would

case will into the future. you have to realize that the lawsuit the doj filed to block this deal was in november him and the trial started four months later. it is an incredible short timeframe. trump is already on record saying he does not like this deal. he thinks -- he said he thinks there's too much media concentration. but there is this counter argument, is he trying to get some kind of revenge or richer vision against at&t because of cnn? host: our first call is from new york, independent color. first time caller. i'm no expert on this merger, but i guess the question i had were, is, this is a vertical merger and by definition, that to be anseem to me

antitrust issue as much as the merger between disney and 20 century fox, which is a horizontal merger. merger, at&t-time warner , in my mind, does not seem to be eliminating a lot of jobs whereas the disney-20 century fox merger seems to me that has serious antitrust issues. one from the job losses that are going to ensue and also the thing that troubles me, and you were touching on it, trump is good friends with the ceo of 20th century fox, rupert murdoch, i believe. they also on the fox news it is unfortunate, it just seems like the president has gotten himself so involved the justiceis that seems like it is going to be biased by what he may want to happen. appreciate your comments. host: that is a key question in

the trial, vertical and horizontal. before we answer this last caller, can you explain the difference? what do those terms mean? guest: that is the main reason why this is so closely watched in the antitrust community, because it is not often a challenge is brought to a vertical merger. vertical merger is what the caller said. it is some kind of transaction where it doesn't actually overtly remove competition from the field. in this case, at&t, their business was wireless services. they have directv. they were buying a movie studio. they were buying cable networks. they were not buying any kind of direct rival. there is another proposed merger, and that is disney to buy a lot of the assets of 20 century fox. in that case, it is a horizontal merger because disney would be buying as mrs. that it actually -- businesses that it competes with.

yet the walt disney studio, the 20 century fox studio. there is that prospect of when you start to have redundancies, when you are buying like businesses. that is the basic difference between vertical and horizontal. horizontal him historically, get theo really interest, so to speak, of antitrust regulators because of that reason, because you're removing competition from the field. that is why this case is so different is because it is a vertical merger from at&t's standpoint. it is such a rarity that they feel like they haven't unfairly singled out. host: you write that some academics argue a decision in favor of the doj would shift the way they're treated.

guest: yes. that is why, because there is in this expectation on wall street that vertical mergers will have after easier time at&t-time warner, there's a lot of speculation that verizon will try to buy some kind of content company. speculation that apple and facebook and google may be looking to buy some kind of big traditional hollywood studio. all of this is out there and all of those would be vertical mergers, and that is why this case would have such a big impact. i should say, though, in the antitrust community, and the public interest community as well, they are saying that vertical mergers do present problematic scenarios. they are happy the justice department is challenging this because they think what it does is it actually can foreclose

competition in certain cases because of the sheer breadth of leverage that at&t will have, especially when they are negotiating some of these carriage deals in the pay-tv universe. franciscos hear from in phoenix, independent caller. caller: talking about arbitration. what kind of power will the courts be giving at&t? they will be able to go in there and resolve disputes. should that be a concern of our privacy? act, what is that? arbitration, that would be something that would be -- if it does play in the judge's decision, i think it will be a big interest how he defines it, how he outlined it. it is all kind of to be what that exactly

arbitration would look like. and what they're talking about is arbitration between two business units. in other words, if one of at&t's rivals, for example, charter communications, says that at&t is looking -- is trying to demand these outrageous contract the timecarry some of warner content, charter can take them into arbitration. it is not necessarily the type of arrangement that consumers would know about or even experience, but it is just a way that it would be, i guess, a legal remedy for the judge to

of the solve some antitrust problems. that is also a big deal. sides agreeth before the judge can impose a condition like that or remedy like that on a merger, he first has to say, hey, there are antitrust problems in this merger. another thing that people will be closely watching. host: tony is in newport, tennessee, independent color. caller: good morning. a couple of things, it all has to do with tv and television, i believe. getting the video to the people. look at spread to t-mobile. now giving free netflix. they've been trying to merge now for four years. that would help sprint out because they are small compared to t-mobile. that would make the service

better as well. things,e a lot of whether it is directv, t-mobile, doesn't matter which one. they rent their equipment to us. herew our attorney general , we have called it many times, because he could not -- they charge us to repair if it breaks. no matter what you do, they're way to get that extra money per person. host: thank you, tony. guest: he brings up an issue that came up a couple of years ago. the chairman of the fcc tom wheeler under president obama tried to get through proposal where consumers actually would ,e able to buy their equipment

your cable box, or satellite box. them in most lease cases. there was a lot of pushback from the cable industry, from the satellite industry, and also from hollywood studios. the proposal in the end really did not go anywhere. we have president trump elected and it kind of fell by the wayside. we will see. i think what is happening in the business, and it was talk of this in the trial, is there was recognition among at&t and directv that consumers are getting increasingly frustrated with the price of their cable bill, and for good reason. a lot of people, it is $150 or more. that kindt was that of gravy train is not going to go on forever and that the industry is going to have to

respond to some of these consumers. you are saying some of that already. skinny bundle.e satellite and cable companies are offering a slimmed-down package for consumers that they can buy a cheaper prices. that is kind of responding to -- i get soea, and many these channels i never watch any of them. host: our guest is ted watch johnson. a call from lawrenceville, georgia. good morning. caller: hello. i was calling to ask, whatever happened to our government that they don't allow these people to become a monopoly? it seems like that is what is

happening. on top of that, when you get your cable bill, they have all of these companies, shows on there that i don't like. i can't select anything. i don't have -- i have to pay the bill for things that i despise. but because the put shows on that i think should never be aired. that's all of got to say. thanks. thing that is another that cable and satellite companies are probably going to have to respond to. they say they have been responding to that, trying to offer more family packages. the trouble is the way the business is set up. oftentimes, some of the sports channels, you have to take. you don't have any choice. you have to take espn because sportswriters are probably the costliest in the business. the way it works out, everyone has to finance espn, so that is why there is not a lot of choice there.

as for the kind of monopoly, i think there has been here in washington, d.c., over whether there should be some kind of a change in the antitrust law. right now it is based on the standard of what impact is a merger having on the consumer and there has been talk, does this really address some of the concerns, especially with the growth of google, growth of amazon, the growth of facebook were the consumer actually may be getting lower prices, but here you have some of these big, giant tech companies that are able to really command a lot of terms in the marketplace. president trump has also kind of tweeted out this, specially about amazon and the impact it has had on the regional industry.

i think that this is probably something you will see talked about more more often on capitol hill. they even at a hearing about it in december before in senate antitrust committee. host: june is on the line. independent caller. caller: my question or concern is i have been switching back from at&t to spectrum. i have been without internet for over 2.5 years, but i've learned a lot about how the internet system works. so, recently, i switched from at&t back to blocked because i was from any nbc channels, but was allowed to watch fox. --time i would go to correct

i would have to reboot my system fixrder to get -- to whoever is preventing me from doing this stuff. it, i would get a call from at&t offering me this wonderful package. it never failed. every time i went into my system . so switching back to spectrum, it is not as prevalent, but i believe that is also happening. host: ted johnson, is that something you can speak to? guest: this came up a little bit in the trial in terms of the extent which cable and satellite companies would compete with each other to kind of get each dissatisfied consumers. it is not directly related to your problem, but it has to do with one of the government's

arguments, and that is that at&t will somehow drive up prices for rivals, and people will cut their service with charter or comcast, and the big beneficiary will be directv. so in that regard, this actually did come up during the trial. but what you're describing also, it sounds like ongoing kind of consumer frustration over customer service. i have to say, the cable and satellite companies do not rank up too high in terms of consumer satisfaction. host: what has it been like at the trial? what is the mood? what have the arguments been like? do you get a sense of it is leaning one way or the other for the ruling on tuesday? guest: the sense on wall street and from others is that at&t has the upper hand, they base this

on watching the trial and some of the judge's questions. the judge them to be responsive at points to some of at&t's arguments. the big caution is so much of the trial, we did not see it as journalists. it was done in closed session or dactedere retracted or re information the judge is sing in the lawyers are seeing. host: why is that? competitive information. the doj was allowed to bring in pricing information from at&t's rivals, but that was on the condition that they not reveal it, not reveal it in that kind of public form. host: robert, independent caller . caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i have two questions. first of all, i am handicap and

disabled now. i have timed the commercials on each program and how many there are. and the program itself. we get just as much of the commercial as we do the tv's in a some cases more. their summit in between and they are long. and these drug commercials that only doctors can prescribe at a time when we're trying to curb opioid abuse and it seems to me this would be a foolish thing to continue doing. i know people who have seen things on tv that advertise these drugs and they go to their doctor and the doctor doesn't think it is good for them so they keep going until they find somebody that will give it to them or prescribe it for them. just over $2000 the year for cable. and all of these commercials that we get and the way they break and, you know, and the amount of time, and it is not

the news cycles or the news media that has the problem, it is all programming. i wonder if you might be able to answer that for us. thank you. guest: you have hit on something that is definitely on the minds of at&t, certainly come up during the trial, but also on the minds of a lot of broadcast network executives. you look at it in their competing against netflix and hbo -- and they are competing against netflix and hbo and online streaming, which tends to have no commercials or very few commercials. one of at&t's arguments in the for networks like tbs and tnt, if there are a lot of -- allowed to merge, they will actually be able to reduce -- perhaps reduce the number of commercials because of the type of advertising will be more valuable and more targeted to

consumers. ultimately, they think it will be better for consumers. it is definitely on the minds of tv executives, of pumping too many commercials into those hours. from independent caller south carolina. ruth, are you there? one more chance from south carolina. are you there? let try -- kingston, oklahoma. is this kingston? caller: yes, kingston, oklahoma. what is your name? caller: ruth. i stood work for at&t in shreveport, louisiana. we got broken up, at&t did. there were thousands of

employees laid off. now i have dish network and at&t has merged with directv, and now warnernt to merge with -- time warner. i do not think that is right. and i wantmy opinion to know what you think about it. host: ruth, thank you. do you want to respond? guest: sure. that is one of the doj arguments, buying time warner and at&t will get more leverage in the business, be able to gain the upper hand with directv and ultimately it will lead to higher prices for consumers. host: we look for to tuesday in the judge's ruling. what is at stake? orst: the judge will rule up down on the merger or something

in between, but the stakes, it is hard to predict what they are because i thk we are really looking at a decision that could , i should emphasize it could, really set the future of the landscape for the media industry. host: ted johnson a senior editor for the righty. friday.com is the place to go to read ago c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, from a director of national intelligence james clapper talks interference in the 2016 campaign as well as his book. on therr, also talks special counsel's russia probe. be sure to watch live at

7:00 eastern on sunday morning. join the discussion. remarksesident trump's to reporters before leaving the g-7 summit in canada. summit's newse conference with canadian prime minister justin trudeau. and later, harvard's radcliffe institute honors former secretary of state, hillary clinton.